Case law

Sahoo v. Gleaton

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 1, 2019

Qualified immunity “shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … And as to qualified immunity, the law was clearly established that “the integrity of one’s family is of the greatest importance” and “a parent is entitled to a hearing initiated by the State before he may be deprived of

Nursing Registry, Inc. v. Eastern North Carolina Regional Emergency Medical Services Consortium, Inc.

959 F. Supp. 298 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 7, 1997

County defendants claim absolute immunity under what is known as the state action doctrine. … allows, as the County defendants argue, “wide latitude to regulate, establish, operate, or contract with ambulance services.”

Almond v. Boyles

612 F. Supp. 223 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 25, 1985

The vendors had set up a private retirement program, though it was clearly inadequate to meet their needs. … RANDOLPH-SHEPPARD ACT VIOLATION There was clearly a violation of the Randolph-Sheppard Act in this case.

Bouygues Telecom, S.A. v. Tekelec

472 F. Supp. 2d 722 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 31, 2007

That is clearly not the case with the opinions of these experts. … At hearing, the court will look to plaintiff to carry its burden of establishing Lancaster’s ability to opine specifically on such matters by a preponderance of the proof.

United States v. Southerly Portion of Bodie Island, NC

114 F. Supp. 427 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jun 15, 1953

And in the absence of such phraseology in the Act, “we cannot read into it limitations not clearly indicated by Congress.” United States v. … principle was earlier stated in Re Condemnations for Improvement of Rouge River, D.C., 266 F. 105, 119 , as follows: “* *, *. when, as here, the United States is the condemning' party, its power to take property is not qualified

Hall v. United Air Lines, Inc.

296 F. Supp. 2d 652 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 30, 2003

In order to find that a transaction enjoys antitrust immunity, it must meet “two prongs: the court must find (1) that the conduct charged was approved by a specific order of the [DOT] or was clearly contemplated by such an … as the alleged conduct is clearly within the contemplation of prior [DOT] orders ....

Watson v. Franklin County Board of Education

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 27, 2023

Watson and Ossino move for partial judgment on the pleadings concerning (1) governmental or sovereign immunity, (2) qualified or public official immunity, (3) Eleventh Amendment immunity, and (4) good faith. … The complaint asserts the “clearly established Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process rights of Minor J.0.” Compl. □ 56, 58-59. The complaint seeks redress for J.O.’s injuries. See id. at {J 64, 70, 76.

Blount v. Wake Electric Membership Corp.

162 F.R.D. 102 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Sep 23, 1993

Defendants, in opposition to the motion, argue that their financial records are not discoverable unless the trial court has determined that Plaintiffs evidence establishes a prima facie case for punitive damages. … Defendants make no argument that the physician they have selected is uniquely qualified in some way.

Cardiovascular Diagnostics, Inc. v. Boehringer Mannheim Corp.

985 F. Supp. 615 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 10, 1997

It is established that “[n]o formal granting of a license is necessary in order to give [an implied license] effect.” … The “no limitation” language is not qualified by any reservation of rights by BMC.

Simmons v. The City of Southport North Carolina

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 18, 2024

Qualified immunity shields government officials from liability for statutory or constitutional violations so long as they can reasonably believe that their conduct does not violate clearly established law. … A court employs a two-step procedure for determining whether qualified immunity applies that “asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.”

Zocco v. United States, Department of the Army

791 F. Supp. 595 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 13, 1992

Every employer subject to the Act must either procure a workers’ compensation liability insurance policy or furnish to the Commissioner of Insurance sufficient financial information to qualify as a self-insurer. … the provisions of [the Act] who shall fail or neglect to keep in effect a policy of insurance against compensation liability arising hereunder with some insurance carrier as provided in G.S. 97-93, or who shall fail to qualify

Harris v. Marsh

679 F. Supp. 1204 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 28, 1987

Such minimal evidence clearly does not meet the McDonnell Douglas test for establishing even a prima facie case of disparate treatment. See Holmes v. Bevi-lacqua, 794 F.2d 142 (4th Cir.1986) (en banc). … The court finds this clearly to be the case.

Ennis v. Anderson Trucking Service, Inc.

141 F.R.D. 258 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Oct 16, 1991

Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 , 67 S.Ct. 385 , 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947) that attorney work product would be accorded a limited immunity from discovery. Joyner v. Continental Insurance Companies, 101 F.R.D. 414, 415 (S.D.Ga.1983). … That clearly contemplates litigation. The court concludes that this report was prepared in anticipation of litigation.

Eddie v. City of Whiteville

District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 10, 2020

In assessing qualified immunity, courts employ a two-part test that “asks first whether a constitutional violation occurred and second whether the right violated was clearly established.” Melgar v. … Where a defense of qualified immunity has been raised.

Coastal Neuro-Psychiatric Associates, P.A. v. Onslow County Hospital Authority

607 F. Supp. 49 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 21, 1985

. *51 FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM In support of this motion defendant asserts (1) that it is immune from antitrust liability under the state action exemption first set out in Parker v. … The latter arrangement asserted by plaintiff is virtually identical to the one in Hyde and clearly constitutes a tying arrangement. However, the first arrangement does not.

Ward v. French

989 F. Supp. 752 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Dec 16, 1997

Ward fails to sustain his burden of showing in his instant petition which indicates that the state courts’ decisions were “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,” 28 U.S.C … application of clearly established Federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1).

Wirtz v. Miller

226 F. Supp. 15 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Jan 24, 1964

There are only three areas of disagreement between the parties which the court must determine: (a) Whether employees Deese and Heath qualify as exempt employees within the provisions of the Act. … The testimony of these men and their fellow-workers clearly establishes that Deese and Heath devoted more than twenty percent (20%) of their working hours to activities not closely related to managing the business or department

Cannon v. North Carolina State Board of Education

917 F. Supp. 387 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Feb 23, 1996

The map outlining the challenged districts clearly reveals a pattern of bizarre shapes. … Justice Brennan’s opinion stated that the lower court's opinion was wrong as a matter of law, while Justice O'Connor's opinion found the lower court's opinion clearly erroneous. See Collins, 816 F.2d at 937 n. 4. 2 .

Sharpe v. MCI Telecommunications Corp.

19 F. Supp. 2d 483 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Aug 25, 1998

FMLA Qualified Leave As noted above, MCI does not dispute that Sharpe was a “qualified employee” under the Act. … Sharpe claims that because she can “establish a period of incapacity in excess of four days in which she was seen at least two times by her doctor,” Plaintiffs Memo, in Support at 18, she qualifies for protection under the

James v. Beaufort County Board of Education

348 F. Supp. 711 · District Court, E.D. North Carolina · Nov 11, 1971

Embodied in that order was a requirement that geographical attendance zones be established; among the zones established throughout the system were the Chocowinity High School and the Chocowinity Elementary School. … James was not qualified to undertake either of the two vacant positions. Mr.